CHANDIRAN Vs. LOURDU MARIE SANTHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner suffered an order of dismissal dtd. 31/10/2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP. No. 51 of 2012 and it was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority in RCA.NO. 39 of 2018 dtd. 21/2/2020. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders of dismissal, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) As per the averments in RCOP. No. 51 of 2012, the revision petitioner has purchased the property in question by means of a registered sale deed dtd. 27/3/2012, registered as Document No. 1732 of 2012 on the file of District Registrar, Pondicherry, executed by Smt. Rajalakshmi, Daughter of late. Kandasamy and others. According to the revision petitioner, the property in question was originally owned by one Kandasamy. The property was allotted to Mr. Kandasamy by the Secretary, Health Education and Association Welfare Department, Pondicherry through the order of allotment dtd. 18/11/1967 registered as Document No.2341 of 1967, on the file of District Registrar Office, Pondicherry. According to the revision petitioner, the original owner Kandasamy had let out the property for rent in favour of the husband of the first respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.200.00 and he settled in Ennore, Chennai. For the purpose of collecting the rent from the husband of the first respondent, he used to visit Pondicherry once in six months. The said Kandasamy died and after his death, his legal-heirs repeated demands and attempted to collect the rent from the respondents herein, but they could not. While so, after the purchasing the property, the revision petitioner got attorned the tenancy in his favour and therefore, he demanded payment of rent from the respondents. As the respondents did not pay the rent to the revision petitioner he had sent a notice dtd. 6/12/2012 calling upon the respondents to pay the rent from 27/3/2012 interalia made a demand to vacate the premises. A reply dtd. 17/12/2012 was sent by the respondent denying the averments in the notice. It is specifically stated in the reply notice dtd. 17/12/2012 that the tenancy could not have been attorned in favour of the petitioner and they also refused to handover the vacant possession of the premises. It is further stated that the respondents are residing in the petition mentioned premises on their own right. It is in those circumstances, the petitioner has filed RCOP. No. 51 of 2012 under Sec. 10 (2) (i) (b) (vii) and 3 (9) (i) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 praying to evict the respondents from the schedule mentioned property on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and for having denied his lawful title.

(3.) A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents 2 and 3 repudiating the petition averments. According to the respondents, Mr.Kandasamy originally leased out the property in favour of the husband of the first respondent and he paid rent to Kandasamy regularly till his death. However, on 8/9/1988 the husband of the first respondent entered into an agreement of sale with Kandasamy to purchase the property. Subsequently on 30/3/1989 an unregistered sale deed came to be executed in favour of the husband of the first respondent. The first respondent died on 24/9/2012 leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. During her life time, on 30/3/1989 itself, the first respondent had executed a Will in favour of the respondents 2 and 3. It is also stated that even on 30/3/1989 when Mr.Kandasamy executed the unregistered sale deed in favour of the husband of the first respondent, the original title deeds have been handed over to the husband of the first respondent. Further on the strength of the Will executed by the first respondent, the respondents 2 and 3 have constructed separate houses where they are residing now and electricity service connection was also given to the premises and it stands in the name of the second respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no landlord and tenants relationship between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 and they prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.